Syrian chemical weapons activity draws warning from Washington

There’s something afoot at Syria’s chemical weapons storage facilities. And it has Washington and the allies worried.

Syria, which remains in the grips of a full-on civil war, has long been known to possess enormous stockpiles of chemical weapons — including ultra-lethal nerve gases. Several months ago, the regime surprised observers by suddenly confirming that it did indeed have chemical weapons, and biological ones, too, before quickly walking back the admission. On top of whatever weapons the regime possesses, it also has surface-to-surface weapons sufficient to deliver them to targets in neighbouring countries — long a very real concern of Israel.

Months ago, when the above-mentioned admission was made by Syria, Washington officials quietly told the press that they weren’t worried. There had been quite a bit of activity at Syria’s weapons depots, the officials granted, but the activity all seemed indicative of defensive measures Syria was undertaking to safeguard its stockpiles from destruction or seizure by the rebels. The increased activity at the sites, rather than alarming the West, actually reassured officials here. It showed that Syria was taking the risk of these weapons falling into the wrong hands or being accidentally released during a firefight seriously — exactly what we wanted to see.

But something seems to have changed. NATO-member Turkey, next door to Syria and site of several recent border clashes with Syrian forces, urgently requested NATO Patriot missile batteries. The reason: To defend itself against any possible missile attack from Syria, missiles that would potentially be carrying chemical or biological payloads. NATO is considering the request, which would not be well received by Syria, but is expected to agree to the deployment.

Beyond Turkey’s concerns, there is increasing worry among NATO allies that Syria is, simply put, up to something. U.S. defence officials, speaking anonymously, say that there is renewed activity at the chemical weapon depots, including the transfer of parts and components. A U.S. official tried to sound a reassuring note when he said that there seem to be no imminent signs of hostile intentions, and that’s good news as far as it goes.

But it’s also a very different note than was being struck before. The last time we detected activity at Syria’s chemical weapons sites, everyone over here was relieved by that, because it showed that Syria was tightening up its security protocols and making sure its most dangerous weapons stayed securely tucked away. Now? The best we can seem to conclude is that there appears to be no imminent risk.

Ahead of a NATO meeting that will consider (and likely approve) Turkey’s request for Patriot missiles, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Syria that the U.S. would consider any move toward using chemical weapons a “red line” that would trigger an unspecified U.S. response. In reality, this would almost certainly mean a major U.S.-NATO assault on Syria’s air defence network, to blow open a gap that would permit a precision strike against Syria’s weapons stockpiles.

Blowing up chemical and biological weapons on the ground, or in hardened bunkers, is risky and complicated — there’s a high risk of exploded warheads scattering contaminants whichever way the wind is blowing. It would require a considerable effort to get enough bombers into Syria, carrying enough firepower, to not just destroy the weapons, but thoroughly destroy them, so as to minimize any potential downwind fallout. And that attack could only happen amid a general smashing of Syria’s air force, which would itself be a challenging task. The heavy American aircraft best suited to bombing runs against hardened targets are also those most vulnerable to the kind of defences Syria possesses.

But despite Washington’s clear (and justified) reluctance to get into the thick of things with Syria, Ms. Clinton should be taken at her word. The U.S. might not see any strategic reason to get involved in a Syrian civil war that stays contained within Syria. It might not even feel compelled to do much if it spills over a bit into neighbouring countries. But if there’s even a chance that Syria might be preparing to use its weapons of mass destruction, on its own rebellious population or its neighbours, expect a forceful American response. A short, focused pre-emptve air war against Syria is a far preferable option than dealing with a Middle East caught in the grips of an escalating exchange of weapons of mass destruction.